On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 21:06:31 -0300 Daniel Almeida <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Onur, > > I went through this and Sami's downstream implementation as asked. I think we > can strike a middle ground here, because it looks like the two trees need > different things at the moment. > > Upstream tyr today has no scheduler and no jobs. It seems like everywhere we > might want to issue resets can get a hold of &Device<Bound>: probe, > ScopedQueue, IRQ handlers and etc. For this, I think your 'bound design fits, > and I'd like v4 to keep it. > > I think the problem starts when the job queue lands, because now we might find > ourselves in places that only have access to the DRM device data which has a > 'static bound and thus a hard requirement on Devres, AFAIU. I think we can > keep > that in tyr-dev for now and land on top of your code later, if we shape a few > things accordingly. I will leave comments on 3/3. > > In any case, there are changes in !74 which I think are improvements > regardless > of the 'bound vs devres question, and I also think v4 should come with a user. > How about adding the GLB_PING watchdog? It would exercise schedule(), give > ScopedQueue its first user and lets us test this on the board. > > Lastly, can you use b4 to manage the dependencies for this series, if you > haven't yet? It would make it easier to apply. > > > -- Daniel > Hi Daniel, Sorry for the late response, I forgot to reply. As I mentioned in our previous call, I have v4 on my TODO list and I will try to address everything there. For now, I am waiting for Sami's response on GitLab [1]. [1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/panfrost/linux/-/merge_requests/74#note_3607402 Regards, Onur
